07-13-2018, 09:43 PM
Thread Rating:
There is no proof that Jesus existed
|
07-13-2018, 09:51 PM
(07-13-2018, 09:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No. It does not depend on the translation. It depends on the context. Even the NIV version makes it clear if you look at more than just one verse You do realize had in this context means "having done previously" don't you?
07-13-2018, 10:10 PM
(07-13-2018, 09:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You do realize had in this context means "having done previously" don't you? Yes. It is called the "past perfect tense". Clearly God had to create the animals previous to bringing them to Adam, but he still created Adam before the animals. The word "will" creates what is called the "simple future tense". So when God says "I will make him a helper" that means it has not happened yet. 1. God sees Adam alone. 2. God says "I will make him a helper" 3. After God makes animals he brings them to Adam.
07-13-2018, 10:19 PM
It's interesting, this little back and forth caused me to look at some different translations. There are some where it is much less ambiguously written that the animals were made after Adam. I had never noticed that.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
07-13-2018, 10:31 PM
07-13-2018, 10:51 PM
(07-13-2018, 10:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes. It is called the "past perfect tense". Clearly God had to create the animals previous to bringing them to Adam, but he still created Adam before the animals. ..and Adam named none of the animals mate; so God did not make one of them his helper. So yeah, God will make one of the animals his helper if he selects one that is compatible. None were so he had to go to plan B. BTW, you just watched a show on grammar didn't you?
07-13-2018, 11:21 PM
(07-13-2018, 01:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Hence, why I also linked the footnotes. Wiki is only a poor source when the information in the wiki is not sourced. The statement I posted had 3 separate footnotes. That's a good source. 1]The sources from wiki, save one that I could find, all come from a religious background. PHD’s & very smart people & I’m sure they’ve done due diligence, but they are searching for confirmation. One of those sources even has the title;Jesus & His Contemporaries. I may be presumptuous here, because I didn’t even bother to look into that one, but it’s beyond irrefutable that there are no contemporary historians that mention Jesus. I mean, if you insist that I go through each source, I will but I suspect I’ll find more of the same. 2]Citing the Gospels, is not an independent source. I’ll concede(for the sake of argument and time) that historians agree Tacitus is authentic but let’s not conclude that the Gospels are. 3]Tacitus doesn’t mention Jesus or Messiah, only Christos/Christus. Further, in the passage he incorrectly labels Pilate as a Procurator.
-That which we need most, will be found where we want to visit least.-
07-16-2018, 02:52 PM
(07-13-2018, 11:21 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: 1]The sources from wiki, save one that I could find, all come from a religious background. PHD’s & very smart people & I’m sure they’ve done due diligence, but they are searching for confirmation. One of those sources even has the title;Jesus & His Contemporaries. I may be presumptuous here, because I didn’t even bother to look into that one, but it’s beyond irrefutable that there are no contemporary historians that mention Jesus. I mean, if you insist that I go through each source, I will but I suspect I’ll find more of the same. False. You have the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant "non-blblical contemporary historians, which you are also incorrect about. You have the aforementioned Tacitus and there's also Pliny the Younger and Josephus (who, like Tacitus, may have not been alive during the time Jesus lived, they were close enough in time that they would have known if there was no such human being). There's also Mara bar Serapion and the Babylonian Talmud. Now, sure, you have reasons to doubt the authenticty of all those references, but you can NOT factually claim that there is no non-Biblical evidence of Jesus' existence. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)